Marsha Singh: I think I have been more than generous in accepting interventions and I would like to make some progress.
	I want to turn to some of the specific principles that underpin the Bill. Recent legislation and policy guidance have demonstrated a trend toward discouraging litigation in favour of dispute resolution. We have seen that in the revised employment tribunals regulations and the Employment Act 2002. I am in favour of that, provided that it genuinely works to resolve discrimination rather than simply pushing complainants into withdrawing genuine claims. It must not be an excuse to conceal or bury discrimination. My Bill will ensure that that does not happen.
	The Bill's provisions will provide the best possible support for complainants; they are not about lining the pockets of the legal profession. The Bill explicitly does not provide for lawyers and barristers as the first recourse, but for specialist help that is properly accredited and monitored. Many claims are settled without a tribunal—as many as 46 per cent. for unfair dismissal, 49 per cent. for disability discrimination and almost 40 per cent. of equal pay claims.
	An employment lawyer, quoted in The Guardian in July 2004, estimated that 85 per cent. of employment claims are settled out of court—a strong indication that the majority of complainants would prefer a conciliated settlement. Few actually want their day in court; they want to exercise their human right to access to justice and to redress discrimination and unfair employment practices. There will of course be a few cases where lawyers are necessary, but the process will ensure that it is only when they are really justified.
	Since the 1990s, we have seen an emphasis on fostering development in the voluntary and not-for-profit sector. While this confers a valuable and desirable degree of independence, it is vital to ensure that the service delivered is to a high standard. The Bill aims to do just that.
	We are all well aware of the sterling work carried out by many voluntary bodies, such as Citizens Advice and law centres, which undertake a range of advice services and are frequently constrained by lack of adequate funding. A quote from Citizens Advice illustrates this.Citizens advice bureaux place great emphasis on mediation, negotiation and settlements, use of tribunals, ombudsman schemes and other alternative dispute resolution procedures where these are effective. But, as I mentioned, they are constrained, not only by the total amount of funding they have overall, but restrictions on how it can be used, and
	"there are no incentives or rewards for publicly funded practitioners to pursue these avenues for clients. For example Citizen's Advice Bureaux are currently limited in the amount of contract time they can claim for dealing with correspondence on behalf of clients, which may be essential to negotiate a resolution, and can prevent the client being taken to court in debt cases".
	Citizens Advice goes on to suggest:
	"Incentives to negotiate effectively in complex cases should be structured into the contractual regime and into the funding code".
	I would also draw attention to an example from my constituency. The northern complainants aid fund was founded in 1991 by a group of former complainants in Bradford. Between 1992 and 2003, the NCAF represented complainants in 110 successful discrimination cases at employment tribunals and negotiated settlements in hundreds more cases. It also provided training for union staff and others working on discrimination and in 1993 was described by the CRE as a best practice model. The landmark Birmingham pregnancy discrimination case that I mentioned earlier, which stimulated the Equal Opportunities Commission research, was brought by the NCAF. Yet, because of cuts in funding for complainant aid, in 2003 it was forced to suspend direct assistance.
	That picture is repeated again and again. Bradford law centre has had its local authority grant cut and has had to reduce considerably the time that it can allocate to employment cases.

Marsha Singh: I am grateful for that intervention. Whatever is stated on that website, the reality is that for the majority of people no assistance is available, and I am on my feet today to try and redress that. [Interruption.] With the leave of the House, I shall continue.
	Some hon. Members may say that this work should be covered by the existing equality bodies. That is clearly not happening. Between 2002 and 2005 there was a systematic reduction in the already small amount of money available for representation. In June 2004, the Government released figures that revealed that for 2004–05 the CRE had earmarked 2 per cent. of its annual budget for discrimination cases, the EOC 3.1 per cent. and the Disability Rights Commission 5.5 per cent. That does not amount to a significant amount of support. The Equal Opportunities Commission, for example, tends to take up cases of "strategic importance", which to some extent applies to the CRE and the DRC. That is, it will support a claimant in bringing a case that will assist in setting a precedent for other cases. That is of little value unless those that follow have the resources to pursue their own complaint.
	Hon. Members may also argue, as they have, that this support is a job for trade unions. I do not dispute that. My concern, however, is that union membership is not as high as many of us would like, and some groups of workers are especially vulnerable. Department of Trade and Industry figures for 2004 show that less than a third—28.8 per cent.—of workers are union members, and in the private sector it is less than a fifth—17.2 per cent. Union membership is even lower for the 16 to 24 age group, at 8.9 per cent.

Mark Tami: Does my hon. Friend accept, though, that there must be a balance and we have to be careful that while giving the appropriate rights we do not legislate unions out of existence? In countries such as France, where perhaps the terms of such legislation would go much further, trade union membership is very low indeed, apart from in a few sections of the public sector.

Marsha Singh: The reality is how I portrayed it, and I am trying to achieve a balance between those people who do get support because they are in unions—I would encourage more people to join a trade union—and the vast majority of people who are not in trade unions, who cannot access the support that they need in such cases. Young people are especially vulnerable. They are unlikely to be unionised and may face discrimination at the point of finding a job. In July 2005, Radio Five Live carried out a survey that exposed discrimination between job applicants. It sent dummy CVs to 60 companies. It found that 23 per cent. of those with "white"-sounding names were offered interviews, while only 9 per cent. of applicants with Muslim names and 13 per cent. of those with African names were offered interviews. Nine years before, a young Bradford jobseeker, Tahir Hussain, had tested this himself with the same result, which resulted in 11 successful tribunal cases. In the 1980s, the charity Scope conducted a survey on similar principles in relation to disability—and yes, the results were the same.

Marsha Singh: That was possible when support was available for that young man. That support is no longer available in Bradford or in many other parts of the country. Either we work on the desert and oases principle that was propounded before—that we have a service in many areas of the country and we are not bothered if there is no service in others—or we have a national system that gives all complainants of discrimination in employment equal access to justice. There is no such system at the moment.
	Some might suggest that no win, no fee arrangements are available to complainants. Such arrangements have received a bad press of late. There is no doubt that such agreements do not favour early conciliated resolution. Indeed, they are specifically geared to litigation. As well as often leading claimants into debt, they often lead to gridlock in the courts. The complex financial and legal processes involved are often misunderstood by complainants. There is widespread mis-selling of legal insurance products. Complainants are subjected to high-pressure sales tactics by unqualified salesman. Inappropriate marketing and sales practices are used—for example, with salesmen approaching accident victims in hospital.
	Few complainants seem to understand the risks and liabilities that they are exposing themselves to when they are misled into thinking the system will be genuinely conducted on a no win, no fee arrangement. They often find that there are hidden and unpredictable costs. Loan-financed insurance premiums, in addition to other legal costs, can often wipe out claimants' compensation. In some cases, complainants even owe money at the end of the process. So we can see that discrimination in employment is widespread and begins at the point of application. The existing equality bodies allocate a pitifully small portion of their budgets to casework support, and the number of cases is accordingly small.

Oliver Heald: It is clause 4, but not that one. Clause 4 suggests that the board shall accredit bodies to tender for the work of providing assistance. Clause 5(5) suggests that, if the board is not satisfied that it is appropriate to select accredited bodies, it can select a non-accredited body. So what is the point of all the accreditation work if the board can choose whoever it wants?

Marsha Singh: The board cannot quite choose whoever it wants. The accredited body in a certain area may have failed some of the monitoring tests. So to provide a service, the board would need to invite other tenders.
	In summary, the Bill provides for an independent, adequately funded not-for-profit service to give specialist support on employment discrimination cases. That can be achieved without necessarily allocating new money, rather by transferring funds from existing sources, which would be timely given those bodies are being restructured. Integral to the Bill are provisions to ensure that that support is properly monitored, accredited and regulated.
	Citizens Advice has commented:
	"In a mixed economy of services, access to justice is best promoted through a diversity of pathways to legal redress. Tribunals are often described as a cheaper more accessible and user-friendly forum of adjudication; the various tribunals handle over a million cases a year. However, there is no public funding available for legal representation at tribunals and users often find themselves dealing with complex legal issues and procedures unassisted. Across all the advice areas that come within the scope of the Community Legal Service, CABs frequently report cases, which demonstrate a clear need for public funding to be made available for representation at tribunals, and additional benefits to helping clients resolve issues through tribunal processes rather than allowing legal problems to escalate further. Given the principles imposed by the Human Rights Act, it is increasingly difficult to justify the exclusion of tribunal representation from the scope of the funding code."
	Citizens Advice has also reported more generally on access to justice. In its report on community legal services, it found that 27 per cent. of citizens advice bureaux had difficulty in finding solicitors to deal with employment cases. Employment tribunals are intended to ensure that both parties are on a level footing. It is widely acknowledged that the law on this issue has become increasingly complex and frequently places the complainant at a disadvantage where employers have access to lawyers and barristers.
	I quote Citizens Advice:
	"Employment law also grows ever more complex, with the addition of new employment rights, and there is also a growing trend, first highlighted in Citizens Advice's 1995 report "Barriers to Justice", for employers at industrial tribunals to be represented by barristers or solicitors, again putting unrepresented applicants at a severe disadvantage."

Marsha Singh: I should like to make progress.
	Research shows that representation can make a real difference to the outcomes of tribunals. It is long been the view of the CABs that their clients would benefit from funded representation at tribunals, that in many cases achieving a positive resolution at tribunal stage saves further expense at a later stage and that tribunal representation should be treated in the funding code on a similar basis to legal representation.
	Equalities work is set to become yet more complex. It is an expanding area, with new strands being incorporated—for example, age discrimination and transgender issues. Legislative provisions for age discrimination are due in 2006. Legislation passed in 2003 addressed religion and sexual orientation, and transgender discrimination regulations were introduced in 1999.
	I am also conscious that some may fear that Britain is developing a compensation culture, but that is outside the scope of my Bill, as it largely relates to injury claims, rather than discrimination claims. However, a closer examination of news reports finds that such an assertion originated with the CBI in August 2001. The Better Regulation Task Force has exploded that myth, which is largely a matter of perception rather than substance. The cost associated with legal cases in this country as a proportion of gross domestic product are among the lowest in the world at 0.6 per cent.
	As I said earlier, most complainants do not want their day in court but the means to exercise their statutory rights. Therefore, there are three main strands to my Bill. While providing long overdue support to victims of discrimination in employment, it will promote conciliation and arbitration. That will reduce, not increase, litigation. It will be not-for-profit, while ensuring the standard of services, and it will create parity for both parties.
	As Lord Irvine said as far back as 1996:
	"There is no greater unfairness than the legally unrepresented applicant against the legally represented employer in industrial tribunal cases".
	He also said:
	"Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights establishes the principle of 'equality of arms' in the context of criminal law, but arguably the principle extends to all proceedings involving the determination of civil rights and obligations. As a result of lobbying by human rights lawyers, Immigration Adjudicator and Immigration Appeal Tribunals have now been brought into the scope of Community Legal Service funding."
	Writing in 1998, in the foreword to the white paper, "Modernising Justice", he also said:
	"People need to have ways to uphold their rights and defend their interests in their dealings with others including employers, retailers, service providers and the state. It is not enough for people to have rights; they must be confident they can enforce those rights if need be. This was the purpose behind the Human Rights Act 1998, which enables citizens to enforce their fundamental rights through the British Courts."
	Now is the time to ensure that victims of employment discrimination have the same equality of arms, so that they, too, have the necessary resources available to them to exercise and realise their human rights. We are talking about the most vulnerable people in the workplace: young people, ethnic minorities and people who have been discriminated against because of religion or gender. At election time or during the meetings that we attend, we can wear our hearts on our sleeves and say how much we oppose discrimination and how much we support equal opportunities and a multicultural society, but discrimination is still prevalent. Unless the vulnerable groups facing discrimination have access to justice, all our protestations about equality sound rather hollow. It is time to change that situation. Discrimination has no place in our society; it has no place in a civilised society.

Philip Hollobone: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the fact that people must at the moment go through many hoops to get to an employment tribunal tends to suggest that such people feel strongly that they have a good case? However, only 29 per cent. of discrimination cases that reach a tribunal succeed, only 28 per cent. of such sex discrimination cases succeed, and only 15 per cent. of such race discrimination cases succeed. How would the hon. Gentleman respond to the argument that by setting up this new quango we would be encouraging a plethora of new tribunal cases that might be much weaker than those that are brought forward at the moment?

Mark Tami: The hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Hollobone) says that there are loads of hoops to go through, but there is nothing to stop anyone from going to a tribunal with any sort of case under any circumstances, although that does not necessarily mean that they will get anywhere with such cases. In my previous job I was involved in a lot of tribunals in which the case reached the first stage before being thrown out, but there was nothing to stop someone from taking a case to that stage.

Gordon Banks: No eligibility criteria are set out in the Bill, which would mean that claimants who could clearly fund their own cases would often be supported, which would not be a good use of public funds. On examination, I am not convinced by the promises of additional revenue delivery that are made of the Bill.
	There are already well-established bodies and mechanisms that offer people valuable and indispensable advice, such as trade unions and citizens advice bureaux. Indeed, friends and colleagues can give people advice. Additionally, as a plank of their delivery in this area, the Government have attempted to ensure that more disputes are resolved before they need to reach a tribunal. However, the Bill might increase the number of legal representations made and reduce the number of outcomes reached through negotiation.
	The Bill would give the proposed new board the power to set its budget and force the Lord Chancellor to meet that. It could be argued that unmeritorious claims would be funded as well as justifiable ones, so we must ask whether that would be a good use of the public purse.
	I support both our aim of improving advice and assistance that are given at an early stage to reduce the number of cases that progress to the courts, and alternative ways to settle disputes in the workplace. The English and Welsh civil and social justice survey showed an increase in the proportion of cases that were resolved in such a way at a time when the actual number of cases for which advice was received was falling. We certainly seem to be getting the advice and support argument right and more focused.
	The Government are launching a new tribunals service in 2006 and employment tribunals and the Employment Appeal Tribunal will come under the agency at that time. That will increase our opportunity of having an even-handed and responsive service that delivers to people reliability, consistency and dependability, yet is also properly resourced, accountable and transparent.
	A problem with the Bill is the fact that it limits itself to cases of discrimination. Are not cases of unfair dismissal, unauthorised deduction, breach of contract and redundancy pay equally meritorious, given that they and other associated non-discriminatory cases accounted for nearly 82 per cent. of all employment tribunal claims in 2004–05?
	We need to go further on enforcing settlements made at tribunals by removing the legal onus on complainants to pursue their awards, if they are not forthcoming in the agreed time, and by introducing a system that empowers the tribunal service or another body to instigate action automatically on behalf of a complainant at the appropriate time. However, I realise that that debate is not for today—hopefully, it is for another time in the Chamber.
	Given that I represent a Scottish constituency, I should comment about the comparison that has been drawn today with the situation in Scotland. Although the Scottish Parliament has increased funding and legal aid, which addresses some of the problems raised today, there are few similarities between the functionality of the system and the Bill's proposals. I reiterate a point that I attempted to make during an intervention. Although my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Singh) is arguing the need for justice, he is failing to argue appropriately for efficient and transparent spending from the public purse. Indeed, I believe that he showed in some depth today the success, rather than failure, of the present system and methods. I remain to be convinced that the Bill's proposals would deliver value for money and the transparency that is demanded today, or help those most in need in the most appropriate manner.

Philip Davies: I do not accept that no frivolous cases go to employment tribunals. The hon. Gentleman clearly has much more faith in such matters than I do.

Owen Paterson: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Philip Davies: I will.

Owen Paterson: I wholly admire my hon. Friend for sticking to his guns against Labour Members' comments. After all, this is a debate—but perhaps it would help him to look at the annual report and accounts of the Employment Tribunals Service for 1999–2000 to 2004–05, which show that, in total contradiction of what the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) says, there are already many weak claims for sex, race and disability discrimination. The success rate is only 28 per cent., 15 per cent. and 29 per cent. That makes my hon. Friend's case.

Stephen Pound: The hon. Gentleman is demonstrably out of his depth. I offer him some assistance. Although he has drunk deep of the well of cliché, will he withdraw the statement that he made twice about discrimination cases being simply to do with political correctness? He must realise what a serious and damaging statement that is and how it is the total opposite of the official policy of the Conservative party. Will he admit that there are such things as entirely legitimate cases of discrimination that should be supported, or is every one of them an example of what he refers to wittily as political correctness?—[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.

Philip Davies: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	The hon. Gentleman has not been here for much of the debate and has not heard what has been said. I am not opposed to all claims. What I oppose are frivolous claims. The Bill can only—I am sure Labour Members would have to admit this—increase the number of people who decide to have a pot-luck claim for compensation when they have no real basis for that. Every right-minded person would acknowledge that it could only have that one effect and would do nothing to further genuine claims of discrimination, which, as Labour Members have made clear, is covered by other legislation. There are plenty of avenues for people to go down if they want to pursue a claim. The Bill will be successful only if it leads to more people pursuing more frivolous claims. That is its only purpose.

Kevan Jones: The old adage is, "When you're in a hole, stop digging." My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Singh) cited the case of someone who was dismissed because she was pregnant. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that such a case needs to go to an industrial tribunal and should be supported by a decent and fair-minded society? Will he give an example of what he considers to be a frivolous case?

Philip Davies: The company for which I worked had an excellent track record, as acknowledged by the Labour party, of helping people with disabilities into employment and of helping its customers, yet it still faced complaints from people who said that they were not given a job because of their disability, when nothing could have been further from the truth. That company was a large multinational and, in many respects, could deal with those complaints. My concern is for the many thousands of small businesses up that have neither the personnel nor the time to deal with people who try their luck, hoping that they will get a few quid out of someone. Those cases are not acceptable. The Bill would only encourage such people to take their cases as far as they could possibly go.

Kevan Jones: I understand that the hon. Gentleman used to work for Asda, which is owned by Walmart. Does not Walmart—a very anti-trade union firm—face a huge number of sex discrimination cases, and even race discrimination cases, throughout that United States? He says that his former employer is a shining example of good practice, but the evidence does not support his case.

Philip Davies: The hon. Gentleman clearly has no idea what he is talking about. Asda was my former employer. Can he give an example of it discriminating against anybody with a disability, or on the grounds of race or sex? Asda still faces complaints, despite its excellent track record. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that companies with excellent track records still face frivolous complaints?

Kevan Jones: I used to negotiate with Asda and with the former Member, Mr. Archie Norman, who represented Tunbridge Wells. Asda has a clear policy of discouraging people from joining trade unions. It has a way of trying to bypass independent legal advice that people can get.

Owen Paterson: It is clear that the employment tribunal service annual report and accounts 1999–2000 to 2004–05 were not on the holiday reading list of thejyhon. Members for Ealing, North (Stephen Pound) and for North Durham (Mr. Jones). The facts help my hon. Friend's case. The total number of discrimination claims has increased from 8,272 in 1999–2000 to 27,907 in 2004–05, and they have increased from 9.9 to 19 per cent. of the total number of claims.

Diana Johnson: There are cases where it is vital that people have access to legal representation, or representation through a trade union. This Government have been sensible in bringing forward alternative dispute resolution as a powerful means of trying to settle claims between employers and employees, but some cases will go to tribunal and it is vital that those most disadvantaged in our society—they are who we are talking about—have the opportunity to have legal representation.

Kevan Jones: It is nice to hear from an individual who understands the subject more than the previous hon. Member to make a speech did. Is it correct that, if the case that she has described had been a frivolous case, it would not even have got through the tribunal's doors?

Diana Johnson: Some of the most effective representatives whom I have come across in employment tribunals are not lawyers but people who have a lot of experience working in citizens advice bureaux or law centres. Often they will have a more commonsense approach, too.
	Again, I agree with the principle of representation in employment tribunals for some cases. I do not believe that we need the extent and range of representation that perhaps this Bill is putting forward. Agreeing in principle but looking at the practicalities of my own experience, I would say a better way forward was to charge the Legal Services Commission with looking again at how best legal advice and representation can be provided where it is needed in tribunals. There is a wider issue about community law centres and the valuable role they can play in educating local communities about the rights they have, taking forward claims of discrimination and other employment matters when necessary, and using all the alternative dispute resolution mechanisms. I found ACAS vital in the claims I took forward.

Diana Johnson: That is right. I am pleased that the Government have introduced a range of measures. We have the commitment to the community legal service. We have funding of some community law centres. We also have investment in citizens advice bureaux. All those measures are positive and we should support them, but there is a need in certain cases for legal representation.
	I want to say something about the particular problems applicants have in employment tribunals if they find themselves having to represent themselves. When I started practising employment law, the procedures in the employment tribunal—it was then called the industrial tribunal—were far simpler. It was almost as if one could turn up on the day and present one's case. Now a range of procedures have to be adopted. We have to disclose evidence before a tribunal hearing, provide witness statements and further and better particulars when requested by the other side. Applicants find those things difficult to do. It is getting quite technical and legalistic. That is why it is vital to have input from a law centre or a trade union rep. They are able to deal with those things.

Oliver Heald: I agree with the hon. Lady's basic argument that building on what we have is preferable to a new quango. She talks about barristers, companies being represented at tribunals and the over-formality of the process. Does she not accept that, with only about 5 per cent. of discrimination cases succeeding in the tribunal, she is talking about a massive burden on British business? Anything that encourages a surge in claims will make that huge burden even worse.

Diana Johnson: I agree with my hon. Friend.
	Another case that I dealt with involved a women who had been diagnosed with breast cancer and who was going through a TUPE employment transfer—under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981. Both her existing employer and the new one denied that she was their responsibility. Both were large, well known companies and I was taken aback by their response. We had reached the door of the tribunal when I heard through the wall a barrister shouting to both employers that one of them had to take responsibility, and that if the claim reached the tribunal both would get massive bad publicity. We should focus on the useful role that lawyers can play, but stress to employers—good ones—that it is much better for them to deal with claims sensibly and reasonably, lest they get themselves into difficulty in a tribunal.
	There are other bodies of which we should be aware. The Free Representation Unit provides advice and representation to people who are not able to access legal representation through the legal aid scheme. The unit comprises young barristers and solicitors who are willing to give their free time to represent people, and they do a sterling job. In addition, barristers give their time for free through the Bar Pro Bono Unit. I commend both organisations, but I do not think that we as a society should rely on people giving up their time for free.

Diana Johnson: I commend the work that Citizens Advice does. The problem in my constituency, Hull, North, is that often at 8 o'clock in the morning the citizens advice bureau has a queue of people wanting to get in to obtain advice. There is still a great deal of unmet need. The CABs and law centres have an important role to play. I hope that in future debates I may be able to put the case for more funding being made available to them. At present, as other hon. Members said, funding may depend on the political complexion of the local authorities in the area.
	In Hull we had a very good law centre which was funded not only by Hull city council, but by some of the surrounding local authorities. Hull city council recognised the important role that Humberside law centre played. The other local authorities around Hull, which were Tory-controlled, unfortunately decided not to continue to contribute to the work of the law centre, so they withdrew their funding. That resource for local people in east Yorkshire has disappeared. From looking back at cases, we know that Humberside law centre led the way in a number of disability discrimination cases, and in compensation cases involving trawlermen in Hull who had missed out on compensation that they were due when the fishing industry—

Diana Johnson: That raises an important issue. Some time ago I practised immigration law. There were many rogue immigration advisers about. The Government have introduced accreditation for immigration advisers so we know who is giving advice and we can make sure that they are giving good advice. There is a case to be made for the accreditation of employment advisers as well.
	In conclusion, although I support the principle of legal representation in the employment tribunal, I do not agree with the various clauses relating to the setting up of a board separately to deal with that. There are issues for the Legal Services Commission to examine. The clause dealing with the budget is not a sensible approach. We must be realistic and set store by value for money. It is not sensible to let bodies determine the level of funding that they want. I have problems with that clause.
	Of course there must be a merits test for any case that is to be taken forward. As I started by saying, most good representatives, whether legally qualified or not, will make sure that they properly advise their clients about the case before the tribunal takes place, so that they know whether they have a good chance of success or not. I should be interested to hear about the example in Scotland. We must have regard to article 6(1) of the European convention on human rights and the opportunity for people to have a fair hearing, but the Bill is not the best way forward for employment law or employment relations in this country.

Mark Harper: I want to make a few introductory points before discussing the Bill itself. The Bill's purpose is to make provision about representing and assisting complainants, and it highlights—as some of today's contributions have also done—the increasing complexity of employment tribunals. One root cause of the need felt by the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Singh) to introduce this Bill is the fact that employment tribunals can be very complex. Indeed, some 32 different Acts of Parliament can give rise to claims that go before employment tribunals, which is perhaps why a number of parties on both sides feel the need to be represented.
	As several Members have noted, there are already many places where those wishing to bring claims to employment tribunals can seek advice. The Employment Tribunals Service website lists a number of sources of free advice, several of which have been mentioned. They include ACAS—I shall come on to trade unions shortly—citizens advice bureaux and community law centres. As the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Ms Johnson) said, solicitors and other professional advisers sometimes give their services free on pro bono work. In most constituencies, a range of organisations already exists from which people can seek advice, so setting up a new quango and a new form of provision seems somewhat unnecessary.
	The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North also said she would like to see an increase in representation. However, the flaw in the Bill as drafted—if it is to achieve the objectives that the hon. Member for Bradford, West seeks—is that it provides no new funding; rather, it simply cannibalises funding for existing bodies. The money for the new board would come straight out of the budgets of the Equal Opportunities Commission, the Disability Rights Commission and the Commission for Racial Equality. As a result, they would have to cut their funding for the many valuable groups working on the ground that provide such services in our communities. Taking the money away and giving it to another organisation would damage many of these existing organisations, of which Members have had experience.
	In trying to justify the need for this Bill, the hon. Member for Bradford, West failed to make a clear case for the argument that valid discrimination claims are not finding their way to employment tribunals. He mentioned some individual cases, but in passing legislation that would affect all the various commissions, and businesses and individuals throughout our country, we need to be sure that there is a clear need for it. He failed to establish that such a need exists. He said that he has consulted the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Disability Rights Commission, and that they oppose the Bill. I shall deal with the impact of such opposition a little later, when I consider some of the clauses.
	The role of the trade unions has also been discussed. One Labour Member pointed out that in the private sector, just one fifth of employees are in a trade union. Trade unions should focus on providing excellent representation in the workplace. If they spent more time on that aspect of their role, and less on the party political aspect, they might find it easier to recruit members in the private sector workplace.

Mark Harper: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, but earlier some of his hon. Friends pointed out that the commissions to which he has referred do a great deal of work through funding organisations on the ground. They might not themselves represent very many claimants, but, because of the funding that they provide to grass-root organisations—I see that many hon. Members agree—they offer indirect support to those cases. With respect, I think that his argument may be flawed.
	Accreditation is one of the functions of the board set out in clause 2(2). It strikes me that requiring the tribunal board to go through a process of accrediting organisations, to say that they are appropriate to provide representation, will not only be a cost for the new quango but will impose a whole set of costs, red tape and burdens on all the organisations that we have mentioned that provide assistance to people going before employment tribunals. No doubt such organisations will have to fill in long, complicated application forms, explaining how their organisation works and making the case for it to be accredited. It will place a cost burden on all those very worthy organisations that provide support to those going to employment tribunals, and will reduce the amount of effort and work that they can put into representing people, which will have the opposite effect to the one that the hon. Member for Bradford, West is seeking.
	Given that the purpose of the new board is to provide representation, I am a little concerned that clause 2(3)(c) says that it may
	"undertake, or arrange for or support (whether financially or otherwise), the carrying out of research or the provision of advice or information."
	It seems to me that that research work and provision of advice information is done quite well by a range of organisations, whether Government or other third-party bodies.

Mark Harper: That is a very perceptive point, and when I get to clause 5 I will indeed refer to it.

Mark Harper: The hon. Gentleman makes the helpful point that an organisation already exists to do the required research.
	Clause 3 relates to the funding of the board, on which we have already had number of questions, the most perceptive of which was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown). Certain discrepancies have been revealed. The hon. Member for Bradford, West spoke about some of the alternative organisations that provided representation and assistance and said that their funding was precarious because it was arranged annually and could be withdrawn. But clause 3(1) only refers to annual funding. It states:
	"At least three months before the beginning of each relevant financial year, the Board shall prepare and send to the Lord Chancellor an estimate of its funding needs for that financial year."
	So that does not give many of those organisations longer-term or more stable funding arrangements than they currently have.
	The most concerning part of the clause is subsection (3). It states:
	"It shall be the duty of the Lord Chancellor to secure that there is paid to the Board"
	effectively any amount of money that the board so require.
	I noticed that the Paymaster General was in the Chamber earlier. No doubt, she would be extremely concerned that the board, the composition of which I will mention later, could say—let me propose an outrageous example to make the point—that it required £1 billion in funding and that the Bill would put on the Lord Chancellor the duty to supply that sum, which would require much of his budget and completely destroy the EOC, the DRC and those other commissions. He would have no power to refuse to supply that funding. Such a commitment is extremely open-ended.

Mark Harper: The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point, particularly given the board's composition—none of the people on the board would be democratically accountable. To give them an ability to jump straight to the head of the funding queue and secure resources ahead of many other worthy things seems very worrying.
	The Bill would give the Lord Chancellor no option but to provide all the funding that is requested, but the hon. Member for Bradford, West admitted in his opening remarks—I hope that I quote him accurately—that he had no idea of how much money would be involved in setting up the board, in its operations and in paying to support claimants. Given that he has no idea of how much the board would cost, he can therefore have no idea of how much damage it would cause to the rest of the Lord Chancellor's Department and the other commissions that would be raided to pay for it. That is extremely worrying.
	Clause 5 says that the board must invite tenders for the provision of accredited advice in each area. It would be helpful if the hon. Gentleman replied to this point. When a lot of public bodies issue tenders for publicly funded work, they must comply with some complex procedures under European Union legislation about advertising such work, providing a level playing and ensuring that companies are given a proper opportunity to tender. I should be interested to know whether he has given any thought to how that tendering process would work in practice.
	The process envisaged in the Bill could ensure that fewer and fewer organisations tendered for the work. A lot of local community groups are likely to be small. Would they have an adequate opportunity to tender for work, given the complexity of the tendering process? A lot of those smaller organisations would be put out of business, and only a few national organisation would have the opportunity to tender. I do not see the hon. Gentleman rising to his feet, so perhaps he has not considered those issues.
	Clause 5(4)(b) talks about making
	"arrangements for the payment to the accredited body of such amounts as are reasonably incurred by that accredited body in carrying out those functions".
	Nothing in the Bill would set up any process or financial arrangement for the board that would give me confidence that it had processes in place adequately to scrutinise the expenditure of public money and to ensure that it was spent wisely.
	Under clause 5(6)—my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) drew attention to this—if the board put out a tender for work to accredited bodies and none of them was interested in taking part, the work could be awarded to other organisations. That subsection talks about making arrangements to do that, but no necessary processes would be put in place. So the tendering process would be open and transparent, but if people did not tender under that process, as would seem likely in many areas, it is not entirely clear what other robust protections would be in place. The danger is that members of the board would award contracts for spending taxpayers' money in a way that was not transparent and did not obviously give good value to the taxpayer.
	Clause 6 is on codes of practice. I was interested in the other equality commissions that the hon. Member for Bradford, West talked about and that I touched on in my opening remarks. They are mentioned a number of times in the Bill as having a partnership role with the board. I was struck by clause 6(4), which states:
	"Before preparing a code of practice under this section, the Board shall consult—
	(a) the equality Commissions".

Kevan Jones: May I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to sub-paragraphs (1) to (6) of schedule 1(2), on the membership of the board? The position is worse than he says, because, under paragraph 2(2), a number of members of the board would be appointed by the commission for equality and human rights. It would be contradictory to have two roles.

Kevan Jones: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that theoretically, someone who had a disability, who was from an ethnic minority and who had also taken proceedings before the tribunal might be able to apply under all three categories?

Eric Forth: Does my hon. Friend agree that sub-paragraph (4)(a) could be taken to mean that someone who had brought a frivolous complaint that had not yet been resolved could qualify for membership? As membership would be drawn by lot, is it not therefore possible that several frivolous complainants could qualify for the board?

Mark Harper: My right hon. Friend's reading of the wording is accurate. There is no requirement that the proceedings that such people have brought should even have got past the pre-hearing stage. They could have brought proceedings that had no merit, yet they would still qualify to apply for membership of the board.
	The words of choice for Labour Members seem to be openness and transparency, but it is worrying that sub-paragraph (5) says that another five members should be chosen
	"by the members of the Board appointed in accordance with the preceding provisions".
	That strikes me as rather an incestuous process. That is one of the problems with police authorities. Part of the board, appointed under one set of rules, then picks some more people, which means that there is a rather incestuous relationship and it is not entirely clear on what grounds people have been chosen. That is not a satisfactory way of putting a board together.
	Sub-paragraph (10) is about the remuneration and pensions of members of the board. Again, it is disappointing that we are now talking about setting up another quango, whose chairman will be paid. In fact, thinking about what my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst said, there is an interesting conflict. Bearing in mind the fact that the board would have the power to set a budget that the Lord Chancellor is compelled by statute to deliver, the Bill states:
	"The Board may pay to the chairman or any of the other members of the Board such remuneration as the Lord Chancellor may determine."
	That would set up an interesting process whereby the Lord Chancellor could trade the salaries of the board for the amount that the board decides it has to tell the Lord Chancellor he has to deliver. A game of bluff could develop, with the board requesting a vast amount of money and the Lord Chancellor doing deals with it to reduce the amount in return for the board receiving more money. I do not think that the Lord Chancellor would welcome that worrying conflict and nor should we.
	Sub-paragraph (2) to paragraph 10 deals not just with paying board members, but with paying them pensions, allowances, fees, expenses and other gratuities. Setting up more public sector pensions for people on the board when we already have a vast problem with the affordability of public sector pensions is not something that I would welcome.

Huw Irranca-Davies: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I hope the Minister will address it in her remarks.
	Let me explain why I believe we have many of the right mechanisms in place. There has long been a tradition of support in the workplace. Support has come from colleagues, unions, friends and, increasingly, voluntary sector organisations. The diversity of support that is available from the beginning of a potential case or from the early mediation stage ensures that widely differing cases and circumstances are recognised. In an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami), I mentioned the case of homeless young single males in the Bridgend area. They are exactly the sort of people who would not reach out or be reached out to by a normative countrywide organisation. They need individuals who are trained and well funded to work closely with them and give them advice. The tradition of grassroots support should not be jeopardised. Community legal services have traditionally sought to maximise their impact in the union and the not-for-profit legal support sector.
	Legal help, formerly known as the green form scheme, has been subject to means-testing and the merits of the case. So there is a filtering system and a progression that tests the efficacy of a case and whether the individual requires financial support to pursue it. Exceptional funding under the Access to Justice Act 1999 is available for complex cases, as we have discussed. The reason that so few cases qualify is that they are examined individually and recommended by the Legal Services Commission.
	The question is whether the principle of targeting resources on those whom we recognise as most requiring assistance—the equality of arms issue—is right or whether we should adopt a much wider approach. I believe we should fine-tune the current system, rather than try to replace it or overlay it with a different system. The history of such reorganisations is that they lead to confusion and inefficiency, instead of tightening up the system. However, I have several questions that I should like to pose and ask the Minister to respond to.
	First, what evidence is there that under the current system people are losing out? Has there been any independent review of what is working and what is not working in the current system? My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Ms Johnson) touched on that. There are independent bodies out there, and in the light of the debate perhaps it is timely to discover where there are gaps in provision. Secondly, is access to justice under the present system clear enough? Is it sufficiently well sign-posted at the time of need in the workplace? Thirdly, how seamless is the system? In the progression from early identification to deciding whether the case should be solved through early arbitration or mediation or progressed through tribunals into the court system, is the signposting clear enough or are there differences, depending on location and the organisation in question?
	At the very first level—trade unions, reliance on work colleagues and so on—how confident are we as a Government that there is good coverage in skills, training and experience not only in workplaces that have union representatives, but in those where unions do not exist? If we are not confident that such coverage is near perfect, what can we do to make it so? We have already talked about the onus on employers to encourage such a climate. What more do we need to do to ensure that gaps do not exist?
	I have raised this issue before in the past two or three years, during which time we have made great improvements. However, in closing I have a question for the Minister. What recent analysis has been made of funding gaps in the current system, particularly in universal coverage of legal aid? I also have some points for my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West, who introduced this Bill, to consider. One of my concerns is how the Bill would synthesise with existing legal and support structures on the ground. He has heard several Members express the worry that, at best, it would be a superstructure that duplicates existing practice, and that, at worst, it would damage existing provision by taking funds away or by skewing priorities on the ground. As I said earlier, diversity of provision is very healthy.
	As several Members have also said, we must clarify the costs that the Bill would entail. Providing a blank cheque for legislation— any legislation—is an extreme worry, and although I would not want the question of funding to prevent a good Bill from making progress per se, it is incumbent on any Bill that its financial implications be as clear as possible. Have other ways of overseeing access to justice in discrimination cases been considered that are less "belt and braces"? What suggestions did the Equal Opportunities Commission and other such bodies make to my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West during his discussions with them? What did they have to say about developing the current system and dealing with its deficiencies?
	Today's debate has shown that there is general consensus that the Government's current approach is right. However, concerns have been expressed about clarity of provision, and about the ability of people throughout the UK to access such provision. I hope that the Minister will discuss the integrity of the current system and the potential for improvements to it in her response. However, I am extremely worried about rolling out new legislation that might destroy or damage the very elements that my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West is seeking to enhance.

Oliver Heald: I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Singh) on coming first in the ballot and thereby being able to introduce what is his second Bill on this subject, his having introduced the first, I believe, during the last Session. The Bill does raise important issues about the way in which employment tribunals operate in the sphere of discrimination law. I do not believe, however, that he has found the right solution. Setting up another quango and taking money from organisations that are already providing important services is not the way forward, but he has lit on an area in which difficulties exist.
	In the early days of the industrial tribunal—I suppose that I should admit, as a lawyer, that I practised there for quite a few years—the atmosphere was very informal. It used to be described as the industrial jury, and there was an employer's representative and an employee's representative. Sometimes, just the employee and the boss would argue the case. At other times, the union representative or someone from HR—human relations, but we used to call it personnel in those days—would be involved. The environment was excellent and there was a real workplace feel about it. I can honestly say that it was not legalistic. The employer explained the reason why the person had been dismissed and argued that it was reasonable in the circumstances.
	Discrimination cases are slightly different. Over the years, there has been a piecemeal accumulation of law on discrimination, leading to a large and complex body of law. I believe that it places a considerable burden on employers who have to try and understand the different matrices of discrimination within three different categories. From the employees' point of view, the protections are uneven, which is often poorly understood by employees themselves. I agree with the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Ms Johnson) that people often require good advice in this sphere of the law.
	Other problem areas include constructive dismissal, the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981, and so forth. Over the years, the atmosphere in the industrial tribunal—now the employment tribunal—has changed from being informal and constructive in how it operated to becoming more lawyerly, more formal and more legalistic. The rules have changed and become rather more restrictive, so it is time to look again into the whole subject of how this area of law operates. Indeed, the time has come for a review of discrimination law to see whether it can be made simpler. I would also welcome another look at how tribunals operate to see whether we could return to something more firmly rooted in what is happening in the workplace. I agree with the point made by the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies)—that prevention is always better than cure. Providing decent grievance and disciplinary procedures that operate fairly in the workplace offers the best way forward.
	I would make one point in defence of how employment law, rather than the courts generally, has operated, in that ACAS has always had an important role in dealing with cases, which allowed many settlements to be reached at an early stage. Lawyers practising in the employment field can justifiably feel that they were trailblazing to some extent.
	In the really difficult cases of exceptional public concern where the highest issues of law apply, exceptional funding may be justified. However, for cutting-edge cases of discrimination, the Equal Opportunities Commission, the Commission for Racial Equality and the Disability Rights Commission are providing funding that is likely to make a difference in respect of clarifying, amplifying or extending the law. I do not believe that we have that much of a problem in getting the law right. The real problem is ensuring that someone worried about understanding the law has the opportunity to get the necessary advice in order to weigh up whether to proceed with a case.
	The number of discrimination cases has increased, but levels of success at tribunals are pretty low—below 5 per cent.—and many cases are either withdrawn or dismissed. That may show either that many initial cases are of poor quality or, as the hon. Member for Bradford, West argued, that applicants feel unable to continue because they do not know how to navigate the system and need a lawyer. The community legal service provides a network throughout the country, but is currently under pressure. The legal aid practitioners group pointed out that its funding from the Government is being squeezed because the criminal legal aid budget is expanding rapidly and it has not been possible to ring-fence the civil side. That matter needs full review and we could talk about it for hours on end, but it is important for the Government to consider it carefully to ensure that that network of organisations that struggle for funding is not compromised by being squeezed in that way.
	It is also important that the referral system, to which the hon. Member for Ogmore referred, is right. In the 1970s, I was a member of the committee of the Free Representation Unit, which the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North mentioned. We received referrals from organisations, but the network was patchy. It is better now and the organisation has grown like Topsy; it has caseworkers as well as trainee lawyers and is doing very well. However, we need to ensure that there is a proper pipeline so that people who ask for advice from citizens advice bureaux, community law centres or somewhere else have access to the type of services provided by FRU, the Bar pro bono unit and the solicitors pro bono unit. We need to look at referrals.
	Much has been said about trade unions. It is right to give credit to trade union representatives at tribunals. At the early stages, much sane advice is often given at the right time, but trade unions could do better. It has been said that a large number of people are never offered the opportunity to join a trade union. One or two Members blamed employers, which I thought was a bit rich, but trade unions could do much more to explain to potential members the services they offer and sell themselves a bit. In the mid-1990s, when I was a member of the Employment Select Committee, trade unions carried out a survey in docklands, asking employees whether they had ever been approached to join a union. It turned out that only about 13 per cent. had ever been asked. It was said at the time that unions spent on average 10 times more on their annual conferences than on membership.

Oliver Heald: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Violence in the workplace is a terrible thing.
	I certainly am not suggesting that employers should actively manoeuvre to prevent employees from joining a trade union, but it is a choice. If unions want people to join and to know about the services they offer, which in the case of tribunal representation are good, they should get out there and sell themselves. Many forward- thinking trade union leaders share that view and it is time they did more.
	To return to my comments about the rate of success of claims, I have looked at the effect on applicants and I want to consider the situation for employers. Where most cases fail, because they are either withdrawn or dismissed, we must not simply consider the effects on applicants. No company that is accused of discrimination can take it lightly, and much as I like the informal atmosphere of the tribunal, if a company is accused of discrimination, particularly if it has other workers from an ethnic minority or workers who might be in the same category of employee as those who have made the accusation, it cannot ignore it; it must take legal advice, in my view. So probably almost all the companies that are subject to claims that eventually fail or are withdrawn have employed a lawyer, and have gone to a great deal of trouble to investigate the case, to be ready for a hearing. These are amazing burdens on business.
	Obviously, if we can have more cases that are accurately targeted and fewer that are not, it would be a good thing, but we must think carefully about the likely impact of setting up a board to hand out legal aid without any merit test, particularly as it would, I believe, have the effect of creating a surge of claims. I also think that it would be bad to undermine the existing arrangements, with that tracery of small bodies across the country that are providing advice services already. Every penny that is spent on the new quango and its work, including the salary of the chairman and other appointments, will be taken out of the budgets of the organisations that are already doing the job.
	So there is no doubt in my mind that this is not the way forward. The way forward is to review the law of discrimination to see whether we can make it simpler, which would help businesses and individuals, and to look at how we can provide these free services across the country, in a better network with proper referrals.
	The point that was made about accreditation and clause 4 is important. It is pointless to accredit organisations as suitable to do advice work if one does not then stipulate that only accredited bodies may provide the service. It cannot be right to state, as the Bill does, that any body may be appointed, and that even if accredited bodies apply they can be ignored—as is stated in clause 5(5)(b). If we are saying that accredited bodies will be an important part of the new set-up, they should be doing the work.
	I consider that the whole exercise of accreditation and of setting up a bureaucracy and, in effect, licensing these organisations will be bureaucratic and costly, not just for the board but for all these organisations—a point that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr. Harper). I would not adopt that bureaucratic approach.
	It would also be a pity if the effect of the Bill was to make the tribunals a more formal battleground. If more and more organisations were to be funded and were taking cases to the tribunal, which I think would be the consequence of the Bill, employers would have to respond, so we would end up with a much more formal type of proceeding.
	The solution is therefore something of a Band-Aid solution and not one that I would choose, but I do think that this area needs looking into. Article 6(1) of the European convention on human rights has been mentioned, which of course requires a fair trial, but I would contend that the balance that we currently have, of dealing with the cases that really break new legal ground through the commission approach or the exceptional case approach, allied with the tracery of small bodies around the country—the FRU, the citizens advice bureaux and so on—means that most people should be able to get access to the help that they need, although we should build on the referral process and improve it.
	Organisations that represent employers are concerned about the Bill. The CBI has said that it would be a further avenue to bring claims, and is worried about the effect on small business. The Institute of Directors has talked about a surge in cases, entailing further costs on business.
	The Bill would give a blank cheque to the board to pursue cases in whatever way it wants, with the Lord Chancellor having to give the new body whatever money it asked for. I cannot think that that would be welcomed by the Paymaster General—[Interruption]—who is sitting on the Front Bench with her Treasury hat almost on. I am interested in the fact that the right hon. Lady is here. She must be worried about the proposal that the Lord Chancellor must spend whatever the new board wants on such work. Rather than creating a new quango and a lot more opportunities for lawyers, let us reform the law, build on the current system and retain the concept of an informal, accessible tribunal system.

Lyn Brown: Like many hon. Members, I fully accept the principles behind the Bill. There is absolutely no place in today's society, which wants to call itself decent, for allowing discrimination of any kind to continue unchallenged. The promotion of equal opportunities at work and in the community and the elimination of discrimination on the grounds of race, gender, sexuality, disability, age or creed should be two of our core aims—the core aims of government and all those who are party to it. There is considerable evidence from all quarters—the Commission for Racial Equality, the Equal Opportunities Commission, the Disability Rights Commission, academics, the trade union movement, and the Government's own research—to show there is still an awful lot to do to overcome discrimination.
	Evidence shows the slow progress that we have managed to achieve so far, with the gap between white and non-white participation in employment and with higher unemployment rates and associated links to deprivation—indeed, my constituency has the lowest employment rate in the country—and even some 30 years after the Equal Pay Act 1970, with the pay gap between men and women still standing at 18 per cent. and even more for those who are part-time and undertaking a caring responsibility. Of course that is why the Prime Minister recognised the need to establish the Women and Work Commission, which is examining the barriers that women face at work, in training opportunities and given their often less-than-equal pay to male comrades and, indeed, colleagues. The fact that disabled people have for so long faced not just physical but social and cultural barriers has been recognised in legislation, which now needs the teeth to make it work. Age discrimination continues, whether against the young or the more mature. All such discrimination affects people not just at the personal level, but also in their contribution to the economy and in their interaction with society at large.
	It is shameful that, in the 21st century, we still have discrimination in the workplace—whether unconscious or blatant—from colleagues and employers, or caused by how the organisational structures operate, but those problems are known and action is being taken. Progress may be slow, but it is definitely speeding up now. Many employers are exemplary and ensure that their structures, policies and procedures support equality at work and leave little or no room for discrimination. When discrimination is found, they often have good processes to deal with it. But there are also many employers who, left to themselves, would do little or nothing to ensure that discrimination does not occur. In fact, some of them do not even understand, or make an effort to understand, that discrimination even exists in their workplaces or that they have a responsibility to eradicate it.
	There is no doubt that current discrimination legislation is complex, potentially costly and time-consuming. It is confusing and inconsistent, and it relies on those suffering discrimination to take the responsibility for tackling that discrimination after the event, rather than encouraging organisations to prevent the possibility of discrimination in the first place. The only exception is the duty on public sector bodies to promote race equality, which I hope will soon be joined by a duty to promote sexual and disability equality. But let us be clear that any burdens that are talked about are not just on employers but on workers, who have often felt strongly enough, or been forced by financial difficulties to overcome the barriers that they face, to seek some form of redress, who have often overcome the stressful processes that exist before they get to tribunal in taking their issues and concerns through internal grievance procedures, and who almost definitely did not set out to bring themselves to what, in effect, is a courtroom to be quizzed in what is becoming an increasingly difficult and litigious way, and who still face comparatively low success rate at tribunals.
	Yes, there are increases in the number of discrimination cases being registered, but mainly in the areas of sex discrimination and equal pay. There is a reason for that. Women are becoming increasingly aware that unequal pay for equal value is against the law, so they are rightly claiming their due. It is not easy for others who face discrimination. They still face low success rates, because it is difficult to prove not only that a worker has suffered detriment, but that the detriment was because of the discrimination. We should also realise that the rising number of cases still reflects only a fraction of those employed and those who experience difficulties at work, but do not take a case to a tribunal.
	I can see why colleagues are drawn to the Bill. The system is not easy to understand and some people have to contend with it on their own. With the diminishment of collective rights over the 1980s and 1990s, 70 per cent. of today's employees do not have the support of a trade union, which means that the employees who are most likely to be dismissed or suffer unfairness at work are least likely to have the support at an employment tribunal. Therefore bringing forward proposals that appear to support individuals in their claims at tribunals seems just and fair.
	I do not support our hon. Friends who suggest that we will be encouraging a compensation culture. After all, if no wrongs have been wrought, there will be nothing to be compensated for. There may be fears that increasing numbers of cases are being brought by employees wishing to make money from the system, but these fears are hardly borne out by the amounts generally awarded in costs. Employers should look to themselves to institute good practices and to avoid the process itself.

Lyn Brown: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that point. The point that I am attempting to make—and perhaps have made badly—is that if one has suffered a wrong, one deserves compensation for the wrong that has been wrought. I accept that we need to be competitive in business, but I also believe that one of the things that we have not covered today is the fact that people who have been wronged deserve compensation. We need to find a way of ensuring that they receive that compensation. I am sure that Members on both sides accept that there were wrongs in the cases that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Ms Johnson) described. In such cases, compensation needs to be paid.
	There have been suggestions in the debate that those suffering discrimination do not deserve representation, advice or assistance and that this Bill is political correctness gone mad. Again, I do not subscribe to this belief. I have seen references in the media to vexatious claims, but such assumptions are a reflection of attitude, not fact.
	I do not believe, however, that the Bill is the right way forward. It is built on the supposition that, with legal aid not available to workers in employment tribunals, workers are left with little support outside themselves. This is just not the case. Whereas there is no provision of financial help for representation in employment tribunals, there is support from a number of bodies—the equality commissions, legal advice services and "no win, no fee" lawyers—even though there are clearly difficulties with such avenues.
	The role of ACAS in dispute resolution in workplace processes cannot be ignored, and I have used its services successfully on a number of occasions and, in particular, in support of a small business in my constituency. What this Bill intends to do is create another body to help fund discrimination legal cases. This would be in addition to the intended new single equality body, the new commission for equality and human rights whose remit includes funding strategic cases and contributing to the simplification of discrimination law. The possibility for confusion would be obvious, because the tribunal representation and assistance board would cut across beneficial strategic planning. Increasing funding for both current and new equality bodies would be better than establishing a new board at this time. It would also be better to support the legal aid service. I concur wholeheartedly with the principle behind the Bill—the protection of the vulnerable at work—but I cannot agree with the remedy that it offers.

Kerry McCarthy: Several hon. Members, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Singh), cited cases that have been brought that give us concrete evidence that discrimination exists.
	I accept that some cases that get to tribunal should perhaps not have got all the way there. There has been a marked increase in the number of discrimination claims made over the past five years. Some 83,500 claims were brought in 1999–2000 and although the figure for 2004–05 rose to just under 147,000, the total number of successful claims barely increased. The number of sex discrimination cases that have been dealt with has jumped from 3,809 in 1999–2000 to 16,211 in 2004–05. Some 12,500 more cases have been considered, but only 66 more have been successful. Something is clearly wrong with the system at the moment.
	Why are so many discrimination cases failing? Some of my colleagues would suggest that it is due to poor representation and that the Bill would thus be a way of addressing that problem, while some Conservative Members have suggested that it is because the cases are fundamentally ill-founded. Before we consider setting up such a body as the tribunal representation and assistance board and funding access to justice in the way proposed in the Bill, we need to investigate more closely why such claims are not successful.
	Hon. Members have already pointed out that clause 3 would mean that the Lord Chancellor would be expected to write out a cheque to meet whatever the estimate of the board's financial needs might be. The Bill is inherently optimistic because it says that the Lord Chancellor would be expected to provide
	"an amount that is equal to or greater than the total funding needs of the Board".
	It is difficult to envisage a scenario in which the Lord Chancellor would choose to pay more than he had been asked.
	There is no way of assessing what the Lord Chancellor would be asked to pay because there are no means-testing provisions in the Bill. There are pretty much no merit-testing provisions either because not only accredited bodies, but non-accredited bodies, may be funded. It is difficult to understand why the principle of means-testing does not apply to the Bill because it seems to chime perfectly with the Labour party principle of targeting the most help to those who need it most. Means-testing applies to other forms of legal assistance, so why does it not apply to the Bill?
	Two recent high-profile cases demonstrate my point. Elizabeth Weston, who was a solicitor earning £60,000 a year at Merrill Lynch, took the firm to court for a discrimination claim and was awarded £1 million in an out-of-court settlement. Perhaps I should declare an interest because I used to work for Merrill Lynch, although I had no grounds to think about taking out a claim against it. Elizabeth Weston was quite capable of representing herself at the hearing and paying for legal advice, but she would have been entitled to free legal advice under the Bill. An executive at Merrill Lynch who earned roughly £1 million a year also took the company to tribunal, although she lost her sex discrimination case. Are we really saying that someone like that should be entitled to free help and legal representation? I do not understand the justification for that.

Robert Flello: I begin by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Singh) for introducing the Bill. It has created a tremendous opportunity for the House to discuss a fundamental issue, and there have been some good comments from both sides of the House—although one Conservative Member made some rather concerning remarks. No doubt they will come back to haunt him.
	Although I am grateful to my hon. Friend for introducing the Bill, I have some concerns about it. It covers free legal advice and representation, assistance, leaflets and whatever other help people may need for tribunals dealing with race, sex or disability discrimination. However, there are an awful lot of other issues out there, such as bullying in the workplace. That is a huge issue, and I am told by colleagues who deal with employment matters that it is difficult to take such cases forward, and to achieve recognition for them—although there are now some initiatives on that subject, such as the dignity at work partnership, which is part-funded by the Department of Trade and Industry.
	One of the criticisms of the Bill is that it is too narrow, and could have had a wider scope. I am grateful to hon. Members who have talked about sending out a message about joining trade unions. I am particularly grateful to the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) for repeating that message, and, if I understood him correctly, endorsing the idea that people should join trade unions. It is incumbent on hon. Members and the trade union movement to present the importance of the movement and what membership can do for people in such circumstances.
	Equally, comments were made about the business community and its difficulties in dealing with employment-related matters. The partnership in Yorkshire and Humber is informing and educating small businesses and medium-sized firms, and is an example of good practice. As I said, it harms everyone—the employees and the good employers who take their responsibilities seriously—when a bad employer is involved in sharp practice. It is incumbent on employees and the business community to ensure that bad practice is dealt with appropriately and stamped out.
	The debate has been impressive. As hon. Members said, there is much duplication in the Bill in terms of both material and organisations. The hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr. Harper) made some good comments on schedule 1. The tribunal representation and assistance board would not be a Government body, but a separate stand-alone organisation, and the powers awarded to it are of concern.
	Paragraph 2(2) of schedule 1 sets out that
	"at least one of the members of the Board appointed by the"
	commission for equality and human rights
	"is a disabled person or a person who has a disability."
	That does not go far enough. Why only one member? Why not extend that condition? Why not prescribe other groups? The Bill is not designed to be just about people with disability. It should be more wide ranging. It says:
	"The Commission for Racial Equality shall appoint one member of the Board",
	and so on, but there should be more prescription because there is a lack of clarity about some of the board members.
	In terms of disqualification, the Bill says much about people who are subject to bankruptcy orders, but what about someone who has been barred from being a director? What about someone whose background suggests that their character is such that they do not agree with employment law? Would that be a good or bad thing? Should we specifically require someone to be on the board who has a contrary view about employment legislation so that the opposing argument is put?

Robert Flello: I thank my hon. Friend for that interesting intervention.
	If someone with a contrary view were on the board, appropriate checks and balances would need to be in place to ensure that his views were listened to and that he did not have undue influence on something that is designed to benefit those who are most in need of it.
	On schedule 1, my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) referred in an intervention to remunerations and pensions being of a figure that the "Lord Chancellor may determine". What if the Lord Chancellor thinks that the entire proposal is far too costly and determines that the remuneration of the board members shall be nothing? The chairperson and the various board members may decide that they no longer wish to serve on such a board. Is there scope for a tribunal then to examine the terms and conditions of the board? There is much concern about the schedule.
	Clause 2 deals with the "Principal duties and functions of the Board". Subsection (1) states:
	"The principal duties of the board shall be to ensure that assistance and representation are . . . available"
	in various circumstances. There is the possibility that duties that are already being carried out efficiently may be duplicated. An employee may have far too many avenues available to him. Confusion could arise and the employee may be done an injustice in that he does not realise that the avenue that he should be taking is the one that he has chosen not to take.
	Clause 4 deals with the "Accreditation and monitoring" of bodies and the "provision of assistance". I understand that a quality mark applies to about 11,000 organisations, including solicitors. As has been said, there is an issue whether there is a need for yet another separate exercise of accreditation when organisations already bear the relevant quality mark and can already be picked up on it.
	Some hon. Members have voiced concerns about the terms of the financing and funding of the board and its activities and I share those expressed about the blank-cheque approach. I would prefer that the money that is sought through the Bill was obtained through existing funding structures and directed into legal aid and the excellent northern complainants aid fund. Those aid arrangements should be funded as an alternative to the Bill.
	Much has been made about the possibility of a lawyers' banquet. I think that it was reported a short while ago outside this place that a legal aid barrister had managed to rack up the first £1 million in funding through the legal aid system. Are we to transfer vast sums that are used to good effect now by other organisations that are funded through the Lord Chancellor's Department into a system that funds lawyers?
	It has been said that companies that go before employment tribunals automatically take with them a lawyer—a solicitor or a barrister, whoever they feel is appropriate. It was almost suggested—I would not want to put words into the mouth of the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald)—that it is all right for companies to do that but not, in some circumstances, for an employee. In moving along the lines of giving employees equal representation, companies will bring out a larger battalion to sit alongside the representative or representatives of the employee. That risk or danger is not necessarily addressed by the Bill and could perhaps better be addressed outwith it.

Robert Flello: I am grateful for that intervention. I do, dare I say it, agree that there are bodies capable of providing that representation. I was concerned by the suggestion that there would one-upmanship throughout the process, and that could be better addressed by other means.
	I took the liberty of speaking to colleagues and friends from the trade union movement who represent employees at employment tribunals. They harkened back to the days when, I think someone said, their mum could have gone along to a tribunal and effectively stated her case, represented herself and been heard, helped and encouraged by the tribunal to give evidence and get to the bottom of the case. It was in some ways better to be unrepresented and unassisted. People had a better hearing and better consideration of their case if they went along without a solicitor in tow.
	Moving through the Bill, I turn to clause 4, on accreditation and monitoring. There is, again, duplication about the quality mark and the work of the community legal service. When Government policy seems to be about minimising the numbers of those who are not at the coalface, the point of delivery of the service, and trying to move more funding into service delivery, we are at risk of creating a body that does exactly the opposite and draws resources away from the point of delivery, albeit for the best of reasons.
	Let us consider what information is readily available. I spent a few moments last night looking at what information is available from the community legal service; I mentioned some of that in an intervention. Its direct information leaflet No. 18, "Rights for Disabled People", helpfully explains what employees should do about discrimination at work and what routes are available to them, including employment tribunals. It also answers questions such as "Who will pay for my case?" Other hon. Members have made the point that there are already mechanisms in place to ensure that test cases, which may push the boundaries of the law, are properly heard.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West is right to bring the Bill before the House, and I am grateful to him for doing so because I have learned an awful lot today. I hope and expect that the Government will accept the spirit and intention of the Bill. We should all, after this debate, be pressing the issues that have been raised.

Kevan Jones: Like many colleagues who have spoken, I sympathise with my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West because he is a passionate advocate of the cause against discrimination, and he should be supported in that. However, unfortunately, I cannot support the Bill as it stands. I was going to go through the Bill, but the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr. Harper) did an excellent job of doing so clause by clause. He raised a lot of fundamental problems with the Bill. We saw there the future of the Conservative party. That contribution must have been a relief to the Conservative Front-Bench team following the contribution of Mr. Gradgrind, the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), which was ill-informed and plainly wrong on occasions. He told the House that he had worked for Asda. All I can say is that his election to the House is Asda's gain and this House's loss.
	Another reason that I have reservations about the Bill is to do with the way tribunals work. For many years, for my sins, I practised, not as a lawyer, but as a trade union official in tribunals in Newcastle. I found it sad that, over the years, many lawyers and barristers came before the tribunal who frankly were not needed. It appalled me that sometimes large multinational corporations employed lawyers for the simplest case, which was offputting for a lot of applicants, but welcome from my point of view, as it used to irritate many chairmen who did not like being told by a top London barrister about points of law.

Kevan Jones: I do not think I ever came across a barrister who was from those chambers. The fact is that tribunals were set up to be a simple way of considering disputes. Older colleagues in the trade union movement have told me that, in the 1960s, tribunals were exactly that: people got around a table and discussed the case or injustice. Unfortunately, this Bill would lead to many more lawyers being engaged and the legal profession having a banquet, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Flello) said.
	The Government have taken some sensible measures to make it easier to get justice, but at the same time to stop the frivolous and vexatious cases. It is sad when there is a contribution in the House by someone who clearly does not understand the present system nor has no knowledge of it. The hon. Member for Shipley made comments on the compensation culture and frivolous and vexatious cases as though he were talking in a local golf club bar. The important thing is that the frivolous and vexatious cases will not get to an employment tribunal. Processes have been put in place to involve ACAS and to ensure that employers and applicants have to go through the grievance procedure before they can take a case to a tribunal. It is right to try to get the case resolved at the workplace. That has to be welcome.
	I congratulate ACAS, which does a fantastic job advising not just applicants but, increasingly—this is important—firms about their procedures, bringing them up to date. From my experience, if an employer had good disciplinary procedures in place, they would never end up in a tribunal.
	The worst ones I dealt with were working men's clubs, whose chairmen were often trade unionists: they were Arthur Scargill during the day and Margaret Thatcher at night, when they went into the club committee room. If the right procedures had been followed, many of those cases would never have ended up at a tribunal.
	Trade unions play a vital part in giving free legal advice but they are not the only option. I would not want to set up, as the Bill proposes, an expensive organisation that cut across a raft of organisations that are doing a good job; reference has been made to citizens advice bureaux and law centres. If one has to get a lawyer to go before a tribunal—I certainly would not recommend it unless one had to have one—there are ways in which to fund that. For example, conditional fee agreements limit the costs and allow people to get legal redress.
	I am aware that there are more complex cases, such as sex or disability discrimination cases, which need input from the legal profession, and I acknowledge that there are gaps in provision and people who cannot get access to legal aid, but we need to examine that problem rather than invent an expensive new organisation. If the Bill were passed in its current form, we would need a lorry load of smelling salts to bring round the Chancellor of the Exchequer after he had realised its implications.
	I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West on introducing the Bill. Unfortunately, I cannot support it, because I believe that it would make the situation worse, not better.

Owen Paterson: Why, in the Government's view, have the total number of discrimination claims increased from some 8,000 in 1999 to just under 28,000 in 2004? Moreover, why do there appear to be such a large number of weak claims? Claims relating to sex, race and disability succeeded in only 28, 15 and 29 per cent. of cases respectively.

Bridget Prentice: One explanation—it is based purely on anecdotal evidence—is that people are more aware of the existence of tribunals, and that they also perhaps feel that there has been an increase in discrimination. Reviews need to take that point into account. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) said, many employers—whether they are taken to tribunal or not—realise when mistakes have been made in the workplace and address them before the tribunal stage is reached.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West also asked what access to justice means. It means that when people do need help, there are effective solutions that are proportionate to the issues at stake. In some circumstances that will involve going to court, but in others that will not be necessary. It is in no one's interest to create a litigious society. The hon. Member for Shipley went on at length about vexatious cases, and I should point out that this country does not have a compensation culture, and that we intend to ensure that we do not create one. People must make responsible decisions about whether a case is worth pursuing; about whether to proceed by negotiation, court action or in some other way; and about how far to take what might be a relatively minor matter.
	When the hon. Member for Shipley made his observations about the compensation culture, he was responded to very expertly by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Ms Johnson). The Government are developing legislation to tackle the perception of a compensation culture, and tightening the regulatory net around unreliable providers of poor advice, including employment advisers.
	The House will be aware that the way in which justice is delivered in administration and in the workplace is already undergoing significant change. A new executive agency of the Department for Constitutional Affairs will bring together tribunals under one unified administration. The Government have announced their intention to introduce, when parliamentary time allows, legislation that will enable tribunals to use a range of dispute-resolution methods. The employment tribunal system will become part of that new agency when it launches in April 2006. Until then, we are working with colleagues at the DTI as they review the current arrangements, in order to explore how we can make the employment tribunal system work better for the user.
	The Bill does not take into account the Legal Services Commission's existing role in administering legal aid, and in ensuring that quality assured legal advice and assistance is available for those who need it in employment cases. As has been outlined, legal help is available. Legal representation can be granted in individual cases under exceptional funding arrangements. Full representation under legal aid is already available in cases brought before the Employment Appeal Tribunal.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) asked whether exceptional funding covered language and mental health problems. As I said to the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute, yes, it does. Part of the practice of the exceptional funding is to comply with article 6 of the European convention on human rights. Language and mental health will be taken into account.
	My hon. Friend also asked what analysis had been made of current provision and I can tell him that the community legal service is undertaking a comprehensive review of its provision of advice and assistance. The consultation stage of that process will close this month. That is part of a wider Government strategy to provide a fairer deal for legal aid in order to tackle rising criminal costs and ensure the future of civil legal aid.
	On the subject of costs, the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire, among others, talked about the open-ended nature of cost provision in relation to the Lord Chancellor. Several Members have commented on the fact that my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General is in her place. I assure the House that she is not here to ensure that I do not agree to that particular part of the Bill. The Department for Constitutional Affairs would not agree to that part of the Bill, even if we were to agree to any of the rest of it. It is unacceptable for any Government Department to be asked to pay unlimited costs to a body that is undemocratic and unaccountable to Parliament. Furthermore, we are being asked to provide not just unlimited costs, but unlimited costs plus, as the Bill provides. I assure the House that although the Government are opposing the Bill as a whole, they would oppose it on that ground alone.
	In the circumstances, the Bill's proposed board would represent a duplication of the Legal Services Commission's role, but limited to employment discrimination cases. I am pleased that several hon. Members have been supportive of the LSC's role. The establishment of a new board would be unduly democratic and disproportionate, and would inevitably increase the amount of taxpayers' money spent on administration, diverting resources from supporting individual cases.